[geo] Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project : Nature Climate Change
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1807.html Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project Nick Pidgeon, Karen Parkhill, Adam Corner Naomi Vaughan Nature Climate Change (2013) doi:10.1038/nclimate1807 Received 30 April 2012 Accepted 18 December 2012 Published online 14 April 2013 Abstract Increasing concerns about the narrowing window for averting dangerous climate change have prompted calls for research into geoengineering, alongside dialogue with the public regarding this as a possible response. We report results of the first public engagement study to explore the ethics and acceptability of stratospheric aerosol technology and a proposed field trial (the Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE) 'pipe and balloon' test bed) of components for an aerosol deployment mechanism. Although almost all of our participants were willing to allow the field trial to proceed, very few were comfortable with using stratospheric aerosols. This Perspective also discusses how these findings were used in a responsible innovation process for the SPICE project initiated by the UK's research councils. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project : Nature Climate Change
This is a perverse result, eh? GE trials ok, but not what is arguably the most effective technique. --- Fred Zimmerman Geoengineering IT! Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 3:20 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.comwrote: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1807.html Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project Nick Pidgeon, Karen Parkhill, Adam Corner Naomi Vaughan Nature Climate Change (2013) doi:10.1038/nclimate1807 Received 30 April 2012 Accepted 18 December 2012 Published online 14 April 2013 Abstract Increasing concerns about the narrowing window for averting dangerous climate change have prompted calls for research into geoengineering, alongside dialogue with the public regarding this as a possible response. We report results of the first public engagement study to explore the ethics and acceptability of stratospheric aerosol technology and a proposed field trial (the Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE) 'pipe and balloon' test bed) of components for an aerosol deployment mechanism. Although almost all of our participants were willing to allow the field trial to proceed, very few were comfortable with using stratospheric aerosols. This Perspective also discusses how these findings were used in a responsible innovation process for the SPICE project initiated by the UK's research councils. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: [geo] FEEM - Geoengineering and Abatement: A ’flat’ Relationship under Uncertainty
Ken wrote: In other words, I think that consideration of solar geoengineering may lead more people to want to work harder on emissions reduction, and thus lead to greater, not lesser, emissions reductions. That was essentially a conclusion from a study by the Cultural Cognition group at Yale: we found that subjects exposed to information about geoengineering were slightly more concerned about climate change risks than those assigned to a control condition. - Jesse https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1981907 Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: A Cross-Cultural Experiment http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=45442 Dan M. Kahan Yale University - Law School; Harvard University - Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1648694 Hank C. Jenkins-Smith University of Oklahoma - Department of Political Science http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1621466 Tor Tarantola Cultural Cognition Lab, Yale Law School http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1771754 Carol L Silva University of Oklahoma - Main - Department of Political Science http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=286206 Donald Braman George Washington University - Law School; Cultural Cognition Project January 9, 2012 The Cultural Cognition Project Working Paper No. 92 7th Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies Paperhttps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1981907## Abstract: We conducted a two-nation study (United States, n = 1500; England, n = 1500) to test a novel theory of science communication. The cultural cognition thesis posits that individuals make extensive reliance on cultural meanings in forming perceptions of risk. The logic of the cultural cognition thesis suggests the potential value of a distinctive two-channel science communication strategy that combines information content (“Channel 1”) with cultural meanings (“Channel 2”) selected to promote open-minded assessment of information across diverse communities. In the study, scientific information content on climate change was held constant while the cultural meaning of that information was experimentally manipulated. Consistent with the study hypotheses, we found that making citizens aware of the potential contribution of geoengineering as a supplement to restriction of CO2 emissions helps to offset cultural polarization over the validity of climate-change science. We also tested the hypothesis, derived from competing models of science communication, that exposure to information on geoengineering would provoke discounting of climate-change risks generally. Contrary to this hypothesis, we found that subjects exposed to information about geoengineering were slightly more concerned about climate change risks than those assigned to a control condition. - Jesse L. Reynolds, M.S. PhD Candidate European and International Public Law Tilburg Sustainability Center Tilburg University, The Netherlands email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/webwijs/show/?uid=j.l.reynolds http://twitter.com/geoengpolicy From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Ken Caldeira [kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 5:04 PM To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] FEEM - Geoengineering and Abatement: A ’flat’ Relationship under Uncertainty Also, these sorts of analyses assume that Homo economicus is an adequate model of human social behavior. Nordhaus pointed out in the early 1990's that if solar geoengineering works as advertised, basic economic modeling indicates this would reduce incentive to mitigate emissions. However, if we do get ourselves in a situation where the broad public comes to believe that climate change poses a major threat, then I can conceive of a situation in which society decides to do everything feasible to reduce this threat, including both emissions reduction and solar geoengineering. In public events, I have seen people who doubted the reality of climate science accept the possibility of catastrophic outcomes when presented with a potential quick fix. So, solar geoengineering can help get people to accept the potential for bad outcomes, and then once they accept that, then the next step is to see that the quick fix isn't all that much of a fix after all. In other words, I think that consideration of solar geoengineering may lead more people to want to work harder on emissions reduction, and thus lead to greater, not lesser, emissions reductions. --- I note also that this paper makes the assumption that it will be uncertain for some time whether solar geoengineering will work. As Andrew points out, early tests, etc, that lead to more information could change the results. On Mon,
[geo] Fwd: 7. Climate Engineering Newsletter Feb / Mar 2013
fyi Germay is investing 5 Mio EURO in research. Best, :) Georg Sent from my mobile --- Georg P. Kössler Tel.: 0176/62050750 http://twitter.com/GYGeorg Anfang der weitergeleiteten E-Mail: Von: i...@climate-engineering.eu Datum: 16. April 2013 16:47:07 MESZ An: georg.koess...@gruene-jugend.de Betreff: 7. Climate Engineering Newsletter Feb / Mar 2013 Dear Climate Engineering Group, please find below our seventh climate engineering newsletter. You can find daily updated climate engineering news on our news portal www.climate-engineering.eu/news.html. (All newsletters are available on the websites' home screen under newsletter.) We would like to announce the start of a new priority programme on climate engineering. The German Research Foundation (DFG) has confirmed to finance the first 3-year phase (2012-2015) of the SPP 1689 Cimate engineering: risks, challenges, opportunities? with about 5 Mio Euro. The first phase will include following subprojects: How to Meet a Global Challenge? Climate Engineering at the Science-Policy Nexus: Contested Understandings of Responsible Research and Governance - Barben (RWTH Aachen), Janich (TU Darmstadt) Arguing about CE: Towards a Comprehensive Ethical Analysis of an Ongoing Debate - Betz (KIT), Ott (CAU Kiel), Visbeck (GEOMAR) Comparative assessment of potential impacts, side-effects and uncertainties of CE measures and emission-reduction efforts (ComparCE), Ilyina (MPI Hamburg), Oschlies (GEOMAR), Pongratz (MPI Hamburg), Schmidt (MPI Hamburg) Climate Engineering Impacts: Between Reliability and Liability (CEIBRAL), Carrier (Uni Bielefeld), Goeschl (Uni Heidelberg), Proelß (Uni Tier), Schmidt (MPI Hamburg) Fingerprints analysis of extreme events caused by stratospheric sulfur injections (FASSI), Cubasch (FU Berlin) Contextualizing Climate Engineering and Mitigation: Complement, Substitute or Illusion? (CEMICS) , Edenhofer (PIK), Hartmann (Uni Hamburg), Held (Uni Hamburg), Lawrence (IASS) Climate Engineering on Land: Potentials and side-effects of afforestation and biomass plantations as instruments for Carbon Extraction (CE-LAND) , Gerten (PIK), Kracher (MPI Hamburg), Lucht (PIK), Pongratz (MPI Hamburg) Learning about cloud brightening under risk and uncertainty: Whether, when and how to do field experiments (LEAC), Quaas (Uni Leipzig), Quaas (CAU Kiel) The DFG has asked three further subprojects to resubmit. Coordinator of the SPP1689 is Prof. A. Oschlies, GEOMAR, Kiel. The kick-off meeting will take place in Berlin 3rd/4th June 2013. Further details on this upcoming event will be circulated. Thank you The Climate Engineering Editors Climate Engineering Newsletter for February/March 2013 Upcoming Events 15.04.2013, deadline for application, 7th Kiel Institute Summer School on Economic Policy - The Challenge of Climate Engineering, (Kiel/Germany, 09.-15.06.2013) 15.-16.04.2013, Potsdam/Germany, Third GeoMIP Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering Workshop 19.-21.04.2013, Australia, Talk/Lecture: Central Victoria Biochar Workshop 24.-26.04.2013, Potsdam/Germany: Workshop: Religious and Spiritual Perspectives on Climate Engineering 26.04.2013, UCAR, Talk/Lecture: The Hydrological Impact of Geoengineering in the GeoMIP 23.05.2013, Potsdam/Germany: Round Table Discussion: Climate Engineering Governance 05.-09.08.2013, Harvard University, Fourth Transdisciplinary Geoengineering Summer School New Projects STEPS centre: Climate Geoengineering Governance Linköping University Climate Engineering Programme (LUCE) New Publications Haywood, Jim M.; et al. (2013): Asymmetric forcing from stratospheric aerosols impacts Sahelian rainfall Victor, David G.; et al. (2013): The Truth About Geoengineering. Science Fiction and Science Fact Matzner, Nils; Böttcher, Miranda (2013): Bridging the gaps - Summer Schools on Climate Engineering Liao, S. Matthew; et al. (2012): Human Engineering and Climate Change Brent, Kerryn Anne; McGee, Jeffrey Scott (2012): The regulation of geoengineering: A gathering storm for international climate change policy? Achterberg, Eric P.; et al. (2013): Natural iron fertilization by the Eyjafjallajökull volcanic eruption Matzner, Nils (2013): Politics of Geoengineering (German with English Abstract) Keith, David W; Parker, Andy (2013): The fate of an engineered planet Parson, E. A.; Keith, D. W. (2013): End the Deadlock on Governance of Geoengineering Research Hamilton, Clive (2013): Earthmasters. Playing God with the climate Book Review: Earth Masters: Playing God with the Climate by Clive Hamilton Luokkanen, M.; et al. (2013): Geoengineering, news media and metaphors: Framing the controversial (in press) Hartmann, Jens; et al. (2013): Enhanced Chemical Weathering as a Geoengineering Strategy to Reduce Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, a Nutrient Source and to Mitigate Svoboda (2013): Ethical and
[geo] Aerosol geography and radiative forcing
Little net clear-sky radiative forcing from recent regional redistribution of aerosols * D. M. Murphyhttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n4/full/ngeo1740.html#auth-1 Nature Geoscience 6, 258–262 (2013) doi:10.1038/ngeo1740 Received 12 November 2012 Accepted 22 January 2013 Published online 10 March 2013 Article tools · PDFUrlBlockedError.aspx * Citationhttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n4/ris/ngeo1740.ris * Reprintshttps://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?publisherName=NPGRpublication=Nature+Geosciencetitle=Little+net+clear-sky+radiative+forcing+from+recent+regional+redistribution+of+aerosolscontentID=10.1038%2Fngeo1740volumeNum=6issueNum=4numPages=5pageNumbers=pp258-262orderBeanReset=truepublicationDate=2013-03-10author=D.+M.+Murphy * Rights permissionshttps://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?publisherName=NPGpublication=Nature+Geosciencetitle=Little+net+clear-sky+radiative+forcing+from+recent+regional+redistribution+of+aerosolscontentID=10.1038%2Fngeo1740volumeNum=6issueNum=4numPages=5pageNumbers=pp258-262publicationDate=2013-03-10author=D.+M.+Murphy * Metricshttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n4/ngeo1740/metrics Aerosols both scatter and absorb incoming solar radiation, with consequences for the energy balance of the atmosphere. Unlike greenhouse gases, atmospheric aerosols are distributed non-uniformly around the Earth. Therefore, regional shifts in aerosol abundance could alter radiative forcing of the climate. Here, I use multi-angle imaging spectroradiometer (MISR) satellite data and the Atmospheric and Environmental Research radiative transfer model1http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n4/full/ngeo1740.html#ref1 to assess the radiative effect of the spatial redistribution of aerosols over the past decade. Unexpectedly, the radiative transfer model shows that the movement of aerosols from high latitudes towards the Equator, as might happen if pollution shifts from Europe to southeast Asia, has little effect on clear-sky radiative forcing. Shorter slant paths and smaller upscatter fractions near the Equator compensate for more total sunlight there. Overall, there has been an almost exact cancellation in the clear-sky radiative forcing from aerosol increases and decreases in different parts of the world, whereas MISR should have been able to easily detect a change of 0.1 W m−2 per decade due to changing patterns. Long-term changes in global mean aerosol optical depth or indirect aerosol forcing of clouds are difficult to measure from satellites. However, the satellite data show that the regional redistribution of aerosols had little direct net effect on global average clear-sky radiative forcing from 2000 to 2012. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[geo] New Insight to Forest Carbon Sequestration
Hi Folks, Looks like the carbon storage models need a new look. Here is article which explains that forest floor fungi are adding more to the issue than previously thought. *Root Fungus Stores a Surprising Amount of the Carbon Sequestered in Soil * http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=root-fungus-stores-a-surprising *Boreal forest soils are a major sink, holding 16 percent of all carbon sequestered in soils worldwide, according to a paper by Clemmensen’s team published March 29 in Science. The most immediate implication of the finding is that climate models should be revised to take into account the role that the fungi play. Revised models, Clemmensen wrote, would give more precise predictions of how forest management practices (such as thinning of trees) and environmental changes could influence carbon storage.* BTW, industrial agricultural practises destroys this type of fungi. Thanks, Michael -- *Michael Hayes* *360-708-4976* http://www.voglerlake.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] FEEM - Geoengineering and Abatement: A ¹flat¹ Relationship under Uncertainty
Sorry Gene‹While some resource extraction companies are interested in a warmer Arctic, the people of the north have petitioned for their right to be cold, and the species that are there depend on it being cold. Mike On 4/15/13 11:59 AM, esubscript...@montgomerycountymd.gov euggor...@comcast.net wrote: This ignores the possibility that some northern regions of the world prefer warming and may not want overall CO2 emissions reduction, but rather localized control of cooling.and this is a tough issue to deal with since I doubt they can be forced to stop emitting CO2. However, it may not make a huge difference if they don't Focusing on localized cooling might be a more successful approach to achieving cooling as desired. Nordhaus may be right. Moreover countries like the US are nearing the ability to be self sufficient on fossil fuels requirements, the best is yet to come, and the economic advantages are immense so CO2 emission reduction might not be economically popular in the US. This is a tough political arena. From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu To: andrew lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 11:04:35 AM Subject: Re: [geo] FEEM - Geoengineering and Abatement: A ¹flat¹ Relationship under Uncertainty Also, these sorts of analyses assume that Homo economicus is an adequate model of human social behavior. Nordhaus pointed out in the early 1990's that if solar geoengineering works as advertised, basic economic modeling indicates this would reduce incentive to mitigate emissions. However, if we do get ourselves in a situation where the broad public comes to believe that climate change poses a major threat, then I can conceive of a situation in which society decides to do everything feasible to reduce this threat, including both emissions reduction and solar geoengineering. In public events, I have seen people who doubted the reality of climate science accept the possibility of catastrophic outcomes when presented with a potential quick fix. So, solar geoengineering can help get people to accept the potential for bad outcomes, and then once they accept that, then the next step is to see that the quick fix isn't all that much of a fix after all. In other words, I think that consideration of solar geoengineering may lead more people to want to work harder on emissions reduction, and thus lead to greater, not lesser, emissions reductions. --- I note also that this paper makes the assumption that it will be uncertain for some time whether solar geoengineering will work. As Andrew points out, early tests, etc, that lead to more information could change the results. On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 3:55 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: Poster's note : will be interesting to see how their analysis is constrained as the error bars on SRM are reduced over time. http://www.feem.it/getpage.aspx?id=5456sez=Publicationspadre=73 2013.031 NOTE DI LAVORO Geoengineering and Abatement: A ¹flat¹ Relationship under Uncertainty Authors: Johannes Emmerling, Massimo Tavoni Series: Climate Change and Sustainable Development Keywords: Geoengineering, Mitigation, Climate Policy, Uncertainty JEL n.: Q54, C63, D81 Abstract The potential of geoengineering as an alternative or complementary option to mitigation and adaptation has received increased interest in recent years. The scientific assessment of geoengineering is driven to a large extent by assumptions about its effectiveness, costs, and impacts, all of which are highly uncertain. This has led to a polarizing debate. This paper evaluates the role of Solar Radiation Management (SRM) on the optimal abatement path, focusing on the uncertainty about the effectiveness of SRM and the interaction with uncertain climate change response. Using standard economic models of dynamic decision theory under uncertainty, we show that abatement is decreasing in the probability of success of SRM, but that this relation is concave and thus that significant abatement reductions are optimal only if SRM is very likely to be effective. The results are confirmed even when considering positive correlation structures between the effectiveness of geoengineering and the magnitude of climate change. Using a stochastic version of an Integrated Assessment Model, the results are found to be robust for a wide range of parameters specification. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
